The following post was made in response to an article on the Secretary of Education Michael Gove’s decision to end the ring-fencing of the £162 million used by schools to fund Schools Sports Partnerships (SSP): “If you look at the way Michael Gove walks you can tell sport means nothing to the man. He is simply a disgrace.”

This prosaically evidences why Gove took this decision and why he ignores the overwhelming evidence from all sides that he is wrong.

If David Cameron’s promise to review this is genuine, he should start by looking at Gove’s flawed reasoning.

If he does so he can do nothing but shake Gove warmly by the throat and order that this idiocy is reversed before it wrecks the Olympic legacy and school sport in general.

SSP funding is used to run PE classes in schools where there are no trained staff, organise sports clubs and hold competitions.

Although their performance is variable, nobody involved with the scheme doubts that it has been a success and does good work, including the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Health.

In public Gove has criticised SSPs for not delivering enough competitive sport in schools. In seeking to justify his decision Gove cynically and selectively offered statistics which he claims back his stance.

He told the BBC1’s Andrew Marr Show: “What we’re decreasing is prescription. It’s up to head teachers to decide how they want to spend that money.

“We haven’t seen an increase in the number of children playing competitive sport. Just one in five plays against another school.

“The number of children playing rugby or football has gone down in some cases.”

He conveniently overlooked the fact that the average number of sports offered by schools has increased, as has participation, and while pupils may not play inter-school matches that does not mean they are not competing, as is the case when one class makes up two basketball/netball/football teams.

In any event, the important thing is that they participate in some sport and derive all the concomitant benefits.

This disingenuous approach continued in the debate of an Opposition Early Day Motion on Nov 30 when Gove stated: “In 1,280 secondary schools not a single pupil takes part in an intra-school competition.

"That equates to nearly one in three secondary schools where not a single intra-school competition takes place.

"Similarly, as to the proportion of pupils who regularly take part in inter-school competitions, in 710 schools not a single pupil takes part in such competitions.”

Gove gives no context; is this measured solely by reference to how many take part in inter-school matches? What about the secondary schools outside the 1,280 mentioned?

He continued by stating: “In 10 schools, 100 per cent of pupils regularly take part in inter-school competitions, and in 320 they regularly take part in intra-school competitions. There are massive variations and disparities.”

Yes, similar to the disparities in Gove’s logic because those statistics are not comparable.

Delivery is uneven and it always will be because some people are more effective than others and some areas have greater problems to deal with.

The stated examples cannot, to any rational and disinterested person, be conclusive proof that SSPs do not work.

Gove has simply chosen figures that suit his case and ignored countless personal testimonies from other Government departments and those at the sharp end of delivering school sport, that SSPs are crucial to organising it and that their removal will effectively end sport in many schools.

His sophistry continued: “We know that £2.4 billion was spent by the last Government on delivering their sport strategy.

"Our contention is that although much good work was done, that money was not spent as effectively and efficiently as it should have been.”

He then queried the job descriptions of some people in the SSP’s and criticised the school sport partnership self-review tool, which he said has 115 boxes to tick.

“Every moment spent looking at the self-review tool is a moment that could be spent coaching, inspiring and acting to ensure that more children take part in sport, but unfortunately there is too much bureaucracy.”

Gove should know or find out what people in the SSPs do before he makes a decision to throw them out of work. Additionally, how can he make any assessment of value and performance without data collected from the very exercise he decries?

At one point in the debate Gove answered a question about raising the number of hours a week of sport played by children by saying “for me, the most important thing is outputs, not inputs”.

This is the language of an accountant, not someone who cares about school sport.

It is redolent of the kid always picked last for a team and then shoved in goal. Anyway, if we must use management-speak — how does Gove expect to improve outputs without properly funding and organising inputs?

Gove’s cunning plan to improve school sport by releasing allocated sports funding into the general school budget will not work.

Under-pressure budgets and insufficient time means that many Heads cannot do what Gove states, even if they wanted to.

When that money is released it will be put to academic use because that affects a school’s Ofsted report and its league table standing; sport does not.

Gove claims that an annual “school Olympics” would be better at driving participation is a fantasy that not even Gazza, in his wildest moments, would think realistic.

How will pupils reach the necessary standard to compete in that tournament if he removes the expertise and organisation that trains them? How will an annual jamboree increase competition and participation?

The six men who effectively control this decision – Messrs Cameron, Clegg, Osborne, Gove, Hunt and Robertson – all went to public school and five went to Oxbridge.

There is nothing wrong with this but when their school sport had plentiful funds and ample facilities they may not appreciate how hard it is for many state schools to play even a modicum of sport; that or they collectively don’t care about the oiks.